354 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

hukbum wrote...

@Maxter_
So whatever they do it's doomed?

They are not doomed because of ME3. They changed their target audience, and that was a success - DLCs are still produced.

So why bring up (or in your case confirm/approve whatever) that argument anyway?

If you are referring to a EAWare - to milk ITers for DLC. After they will not be needed anymore(i.e., after end of ME3 dlcs) they will be cast aside, like the rest of us.

Doesn't really matter or fit at this point.

?

[The Heretic of Time]

dorktainian wrote...

lungs exposed to the vacumm of space would explode....ewww,,, bits of joker all over space

Okay, this has been bothering me for a while now. I see you keep bringing this up (for some reason) and it keeps bothering me whenever you do.

The idea that lungs exposed to vaccuum will explode is absolute complete horseshit. It's a myth that has been debunked many times over.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:08 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Ithurael wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

No, in refuse you don't want to destroy the Reapers any more, because the catalyst told you it will kill your friends.

In destroy, you reject his logic and fight on.

Also, refuse the reapers is rejecting all of the "options" given to you by the starbinger. It makes no sense that he would just outright give you or even present you with an option to break free of indoctrination. Even in low ems shep can choose destroy thus breaking indoc but killing him. no way. He even tells you that in refuse the reapers will kill all of your allies (not just some). Starkid does NOT want you to pick refuse.

Bioware came through, they delivered IT. In the refuse ending shepard acts like shepard and doesn't go along with anything starbinger suggests or offers and it fits with one of the biggest key themes foreshadowed since ME1: Freedom.

Yes the reapers harvest the races in this ending, yes you die, but you break the indoctrination and everyone dies free and the next cycle is truly able to defeat the reapers because of your choices in the trilogy.

No, in refuse you simply take a moral stand. But you give up on wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's action that counts, not inaction.

By refusing to destroy, you accept the catalyst's logic.

Destroy is not a choice the catalyst offers you. It's what Shepard thinks the crucible will do. It's on his mind. The catalyst can't change that.

It is the only ending in which you fight on (you throw away your gun in the other endings or you refuse to do anything). You do what you came to do. DESTROY.

[Cyberfrog81]

They wouldn't make a hated ending on purpose. But the DLC model allows for big reveals in the future.

Not saying I'm at all sure that that was the plan, but "business lol" is not much of a counter-argument.

[ElSuperGecko]

RukiaKuchki wrote...
I think it's great that there is still so much controversy and discussion 9 months on. Like it or not, ME3 has really got people talking passionately about a game. For the vast majority of other games, there is no where near this amount of passion (positive or negative) so long after release. It just shows how much the ME universe has gotten under everyone's skin. Pretty cool really.

Indeed.  I feel exactly the same.  There's no doubt that some were disappointed by the way the game played out, but there's no doubt it's one of the most talked about and discussed games of the decade so far as well.

If Bioware were shooting for speculation, they got it - and then some!

[Fingertrip]

fwiw i am in business and management and the first rule of business is that the CUSTOMER is always right

Yeah, you're not into business or management if you think that's even remotely correct. It's just a catch phrase, and it also doesn't make the company across as condescending and not so-greedy in general.

Sometimes, the customer is not always right, it's an evident fact all around the world within any big corporation. If the customer asks for more money back from a service which you provided, then he is untitled to get the money back. Or infact, if a customer finds your product bad, and wants the changed- then you don't dismiss the people that the piece of let's say, clothing was designed for that particular person. It all serves it's purpose and niché.

Come on, if you're going to tell me you're some hotshot business & management guy, at least make it believable.

[AlexMBrennan]

RukiaKuchki wrote...
I think it's great that there is still so much controversy and discussion 9 months on

Well, if you do what amounts to shipping empty boxes*, fans might get a bit upset. Duh.

* When you buy a game, the clear implication is that the game DVD is included. This video, which can be found on masseffect.com, clearly implies that interactive storytelling, specifically a scene on Thessia, is included in the game. It is not - the scene has been cut from the final release. Bioware continues to advertise the game in this way. Legal sophistry aside (apparently, it doesn't constitute a legally binding product description), where's the difference?

[DoomsdayDevice]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

No, in refuse you don't want to destroy the Reapers any more, because the catalyst told you it will kill your friends.

In destroy, you reject his logic and fight on.

Also, refuse the reapers is rejecting all of the "options" given to you by the starbinger. It makes no sense that he would just outright give you or even present you with an option to break free of indoctrination. Even in low ems shep can choose destroy thus breaking indoc but killing him. no way. He even tells you that in refuse the reapers will kill all of your allies (not just some). Starkid does NOT want you to pick refuse.

Bioware came through, they delivered IT. In the refuse ending shepard acts like shepard and doesn't go along with anything starbinger suggests or offers and it fits with one of the biggest key themes foreshadowed since ME1: Freedom.

Yes the reapers harvest the races in this ending, yes you die, but you break the indoctrination and everyone dies free and the next cycle is truly able to defeat the reapers because of your choices in the trilogy.

No, in refuse you simply take a moral stand. But you give up on wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's action that counts, not inaction.

By refusing to destroy, you accept the catalyst's logic.

Destroy is not a choice the catalyst offers you. It's what Shepard thinks the crucible will do. It's on his mind. The catalyst can't change that.

It is the only ending in which you fight on (you throw away your gun in the other endings or you refuse to do anything). You do what you came to do. DESTROY.

To add on to this:

Omega nicely foreshadows the destroy ending.

Petrovsky has lured them into a trap by giving them no other option than to take that route. (Nice parallel for the London beam run)

Aria refuses to go down without a fight, and literally attacks the fabric that holds her captive. She tears it apart until there's a way out. When asked how she knew she could do that, she replies: "I didn't."

Beautiful foreshadowing of how Shepard escaped the illusion. She had no idea there was a way out, but she decided to not go down without a fight, and found the exit.

Gotta love symbolism. <3

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:17 .

[ElSuperGecko]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Gotta love symbolism. <3

Indeed.  Even if it's completely lost on some people! 

[Maxster_]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...
I think it's great that there is still so much controversy and discussion 9 months on

Well, if you do what amounts to shipping empty boxes*, fans might get a bit upset. Duh.

* When you buy a game, the clear implication is that the game DVD is included. This video, which can be found on masseffect.com, clearly implies that interactive storytelling, specifically a scene on Thessia, is included in the game. It is not - the scene has been cut from the final release. Bioware continues to advertise the game in this way. Legal sophistry aside (apparently, it doesn't constitute a legally binding product description), where's the difference?

Ah yes, that video.
Such a blatant lie 

[Seboist]

Fingertrip wrote...

If you people have any education within design and business, they will know that IT was never the case, and will never ever be released as a bonus-content tied to the ending. It makes no sense, and is a bad business model.

Seriously, it's just mind boggling stupidity that ties IT to their believers. It's hilarious :-)

Indeed, according to the ITers EAware is willing to risk turning off the vast majority of it's fanbase by shipping the game without an ending, then throw away money by making the EC and finally after a year from release when the majority of fans have moved on release a "IT reveal" that'lll turn off what remains and throw even more money away(it would have to be free in order to contain the amount of butthurt).

The whole IT "movement" would be an excellent case study for mental health professionals with regards to mass hysteria and complete detachment from reality. Grasping at straws doesn't begin to describe the ITers and they should seriously get a life and stop trying to find deep meaning in a Gears clone McRPG that has none.

[dreamgazer]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Gotta love symbolism. <3

Indeed.  Even if it's completely lost on some people! 

Assuming that people who don't ascribe to the theory are devoid of grasping symbolism is woefully inaccurate.

[The Heretic of Time]

The IT doesn't make any sense. Here is why:


This is the kind of logic that the IT promotes:


(after the release of ME3, before the release of the Extended Cut)

Casey Hudson: "Hey guys, we intentionally made the endings ambiguous because we're planning a big IT plot-twist reveal, so lets work on a DLC that will make the endings less ambiguous, answers a lot of questions and fixes a lot of plotholes, so the endings make more sense from a literal perspective! Yes, that totally makes sense! I'm such a genius!"

Mike Gamble: "But Casey... why would you try to answer questions and fix some plotholes with an Extended Cut ending if the endings are intentionally ambiguous because you want to do a IT plot-reveal?"

Casey Hudson: "SHUT UP MIKE! I'm the boss here! We're obviously doing this to manipulate our audience! We'll be the first video-game company to start a cult! We're genius!"

Mike Gamble: "But that doesn't make any sense Casey. If you plan an IT plot-reveal, then why are we not working on that? Why waste time and more importantly, MONEY, on an Extended Cut that strengthens the literal interpretation of the endings, answers some questions, fixes plotholes and makes the endings less ambiguous? Why not work on the planned IT plot-reveal right away?"

Casey Hudson: "All in due time Mike... all in due time... It is obvious that my genius master plan is far too complex for you. It's not something you can comprehend."

Mike Gamble: "Now you're starting to sound like the reapers..."

Casey Hudson: "IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN COMPREHEND!" Now get your ass moving! I want that Extended Cut DLC done ASAP!"

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:41 .

[dorktainian]

Fingertrip wrote...

fwiw i am in business and management and the first rule of business is that the CUSTOMER is always right

Yeah, you're not into business or management if you think that's even remotely correct. It's just a catch phrase, and it also doesn't make the company across as condescending and not so-greedy in general.

Sometimes, the customer is not always right, it's an evident fact all around the world within any big corporation. If the customer asks for more money back from a service which you provided, then he is untitled to get the money back. Or infact, if a customer finds your product bad, and wants the changed- then you don't dismiss the people that the piece of let's say, clothing was designed for that particular person. It all serves it's purpose and niché.

Come on, if you're going to tell me you're some hotshot business & management guy, at least make it believable.

 

Not 'hotshot' just plugging away like everyone else trying to scratch a living.   (QA to be honest - not sales or owt like that.  yeah ISO9001 & 14001 is the area i deal with.)  like you say depends on the actual circumstances....sometimes tho (and you have to admit this one) business can get customer relations badly wrong.  one business in the UK went ****** up because of a comment he madeduring a private speech (amazing how this stuff gets to the media) when he said his stuff was 'crap'....almost immediately his business disappeared down the toilet.  

there are examples all over the place of dodgy customer relations.  I know the saying i quoted is just speil, but sometimes for the right reasons it really does pay to approach things in that way.  Yeah you will get cranks, but constructive criticism is no bad thing, and can only help the company in the longer term.  Anyways this is a key part of ISO9001:2008.  Customer Satisfaction.  Something at which we excel and are proud of.

[hukbum]

Maxster_ wrote...
?

If you think it's bad writing and spacemagic, bringing up "this is a bad business plan" isn't really an argument, because you already questioning this part of the company.

[Seboist]

[inappropriate post removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 décembre 2012 - 05:42 .

[dreamgazer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The IT doesn't make any sense. Here is why:


This is the kind of logic that the IT promotes:


(after the release of ME3, before the release of the Extended Cut)

Casey Hudson: "Hey guys, we intentionally made the endings ambiguous because we're planning a big IT plot-twist reveal, so lets work on a DLC that will make the endings less ambiguous, answers a lot of questions and fixes a lot of plotholes, so the endings make more sense from a literal perspective! Yes, that totally makes sense! I'm such a genius!"

Mike Gamble: "But Casey... why would you try to answer questions and fix some plotholes with an Extended Cut ending if the endings are intentionally ambiguous because you want to do a IT plot-reveal?"

Casey Hudson: "SHUT UP MIKE! I'm the boss here! We're obviously doing this to manipulate our audience! We'll be the first video-game company to start a cult! We're genius!"

Mike Gamble: "But that doesn't make any sense Casey. If you plan an IT plot-reveal, then why are we not working on that? Why waste time and more importantly, MONEY, on an Extended Cut that strengthens the literal interpretation of the endings, answers some questions, fixes plotholes and makes the endings less ambiguous? Why not work on the planned IT plot-reveal right away?"

Casey Hudson: "All in due time Mike... all in due time... It is obvious that my genius master plan is far too complex for you. It's not something you can comprehent."

Mike Gamble: "Now you're starting to sound like the reapers..."

Casey Hudson: "IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN COMPREHENT!" Now get your ass moving! I want that Extended Cut DLC done ASAP!"

"It's not something you can COMPREHEND", Hanar.  

If you're going to take digs at something, at least do it right. 

[ElSuperGecko]

dreamgazer wrote...
Assuming that people who don't ascribe to the theory are devoid of grasping symbolism is woefully inaccurate

I'm not actually assuming anything of anyone.  I was merely making an observation.  Here's another one:  there's also a difference between being unable to grasp a concept and wilfully and actively ignoring it.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The IT doesn't make any sense. Here is why:

..........yeah, that one drew tumbleweeds and crickets the first time you posted it. It doesn't get any funnier (or any more accurate, for that matter) with age.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:32 .

[dorktainian]

yay heretic's back. where have you been oh bundle of joy? how missed thee. let me counteth the ways till the splender of thou utter tripe be coming out of thine area of thous bottom.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm sure that some people will try and insist that ME4 will validate IT, with the definition of 'what IT is' morphing as it often has to suit the theory.

Mind you, this will be particularly true if Bioware chooses Destroy as a continuation canon, because the IT-ers who were already going 'every answer but Destroy is wrong' will construe a Destroy-canon as validating that claim.

Going back a few pages; this idea strikes me as being the optimal solution for Bio. Players who find Control or Synthesis to be superior choices don't hate Destroy as much as Destroy fans hate Control and (especially!) Synthesis. Put the IT fans on top of that, and you've got quite a few players from whom this is the best option, and the ones for whom it isn't the best option aren't being that badly hurt by the choice.

Even though my Sheps generally pick Control, I think a Destroy universe would be fun to play in. The only downside for me will be having The Twilight God running around the forums proclaiming that he was right all along (since IT-Con will no longer be disprovable), but I can live with that.

Well, you're a better man than I Alan: after typing that, I couldn't help but hope for a Control continuation instead.

[Maxster_]

hukbum wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
?

If you think it's bad writing and spacemagic, bringing up "this is a bad business plan" isn't really an argument, because you already questioning this part of the company.

Those sentences you joined in that quote is completely unrelated. Therefore, your post makes no sense.

First, garbage writing of ME3 is unrelated to a bad business plan. They changed their target audience and they succeeded. And even if they'd not - game development is not like factory, sometimes there are misses even with right business strategy(meaning execution of a plan was bad).

Second, IT reveal being a bad business strategy is unrelated to my critique of ME3's garbage writing. It makes absolutely no sense to release game without a "true" ending, all to release "true" ending DLC in a year, when no one who didn't liked "false" ending, will ever care about that game and company.

[Maxster_]

[inappropriate quotes removed]
You know, resurrection is bad plot device even for fantasy. Well, at least good written fantasy, for that matter. 

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 décembre 2012 - 05:43 .

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The IT doesn't make any sense. Here is why:


This is the kind of logic that the IT promotes:


(after the release of ME3, before the release of the Extended Cut)

Casey Hudson: "Hey guys, we intentionally made the endings ambiguous because we're planning a big IT plot-twist reveal, so lets work on a DLC that will make the endings less ambiguous, answers a lot of questions and fixes a lot of plotholes, so the endings make more sense from a literal perspective! Yes, that totally makes sense! I'm such a genius!"

Mike Gamble: "But Casey... why would you try to answer questions and fix some plotholes with an Extended Cut ending if the endings are intentionally ambiguous because you want to do a IT plot-reveal?"

Casey Hudson: "SHUT UP MIKE! I'm the boss here! We're obviously doing this to manipulate our audience! We'll be the first video-game company to start a cult! We're genius!"

Mike Gamble: "But that doesn't make any sense Casey. If you plan an IT plot-reveal, then why are we not working on that? Why waste time and more importantly, MONEY, on an Extended Cut that strengthens the literal interpretation of the endings, answers some questions, fixes plotholes and makes the endings less ambiguous? Why not work on the planned IT plot-reveal right away?"

Casey Hudson: "All in due time Mike... all in due time... It is obvious that my genius master plan is far too complex for you. It's not something you can comprehent."

Mike Gamble: "Now you're starting to sound like the reapers..."

Casey Hudson: "IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN COMPREHENT!" Now get your ass moving! I want that Extended Cut DLC done ASAP!"

"It's not something you can COMPREHEND", Hanar.  

If you're going to take digs at something, at least do it right. 

Oh yeah, sure, why don't you go nitpicking on someones grammar instead of writing a counter argument?

Cut me some slack, English isn't my first or primary language. But thanks for the correction though. I'll edit my original post.

[dreamgazer]

Seboist wrote...

And you keep on thinking that a game series where death itself is cured and nobody gives a damn is good sci-fi writing.

You mean, enjoying a game series with tolerable writing that occasionally expresses some meaningful themes, and where the hero of organic life's "reconstruction" was a pioneering effort done under secrecy by a rogue agency?  

Will do, sarge.